Germany has Spaghetti ice cream, but that’s at least real ice cream just made to look like spaghetti.

The leadership on both sides would not only lose power, but likely end up in prison or dead, if there’s ever peace.

They won’t do anything towards a peaceful solution.

I don’t need your location.

Pager transmissions contain a sender and a receiver. That’s all the information you need. If a known Hisbollah sender sends to a receiver, that receiver obviously has some ties to Hisbollah.

Because that way they avoid any competition.

Thing is, businesses like Google’s ads are not linear. If you can track 90% of people 90% of the time, your ads are much much more valuable to advertisers than a company that only tracks 70% of the people 90% of the time. So it makes sense to create a moat by literally shitting money on everyone around you.

Think about the opposite: if Apple would switch to DDG by default, most people would leave it at that. And that would mean, a significant chunk of the US search traffic is gone. Europe and the rest of the world are not that apple-heavy, but Apple users are rich power users (on average), these are extremely valuable.

By tracking who sent what to whom?

If you know the phone number of a Hisbollah member and they send messages to a set of pagers, these are likely Hisbollah pagers. If you do that to several phone numbers, you get a pretty comprehensive list of members. You don’t need to know, where exactly they are. That’s simply not relevant.

And again: if it’s a supply chain attack, you don’t even need these contacts. Just a single entry point into the supply chain of the organization.

No.

Google pays to keep its monopoly on search.

Chrome, Android, etc. all are just tools to funnel views on their ads.

If Mozilla would fold, Google would have a monopoly on browsers, which could cause problems for them. So they finance fake competition.

No other company could pay even close to that amount of money.

So, what exactly do you think would be a proper reaction here?

Hisbollah is de facto a state actor in Lebanon. Lebanon is doing nothing against a group whose declared goal is the destruction of Israel, including shooting unguided rockets into civilian areas.

Now, how would you address that? Unless you have any idea how else to solve this, you’re simply talking out of your ass.

Maybe the guys shooting rockets at Israel?

Don’t play dumber than you are.

No, they are not.

As I wrote, you can track which pager got paged when. And you can identify who uses that pager. The pager itself does not need to transmit anything for that.

You obviously don’t know how tracking works.

…and you know which telephone numbers send data to the pager and at which time. That is sufficient to track or identify individuals.

If this is a supply chain attack, the attacker already knows, which pagers are part of the organization they want to target.

What this thread here shows really well, is that the general population vastly underestimates the abilities of intelligence agencies and technology in general.

Not that I think the Israel is the good guy in this conflict, but your argument is pretty weak.

Pager are designed to be trackable. If you have such deep access to these devices, you know exactly who got called by whom and when.

Yes, there will be collateral damage, but that’s almost a given in any armed conflict.

And who does that?

I think you don’t really get my point. I’m not arguing that there are no ways to archive data. I’m arguing that there are no technologies available for average Joe.

It is hardly a good strategy to basically set up half a datacenter at home.

Thin concrete slabs are extremely brittle.

Is it? It’s rather expensive and would you really know, if the data is gone or corrupted?

You’d have to download every single file in certain intervals and check it. That’s not really low complexity.

But what actually is “archival”?

Like, what technology normal person has access to counts at least as enthusiast level archival?

Magnetic tape, optical media, flash, HDD all rot away, potentially within frighteningly short timeframes and often with subtle bitrot.

And just about 5 of them have the same capacity as an iPhone battery. Absolutely insane.

What’s really baffling to me is how completely irrelevant most ads are to me.

And I’m not saying “ads don’t work for me”, I get ads for products that I will never buy. I’m a man and YouTube recommends me tampons, lipstick and perfume. I also won’t buy a car anytime soon, yet I get tons of ads for cars.

Even in the mindset of an ad person, that can’t make sense. Sure, there is the off chance that I’ll buy lipstick for my girlfriend, but how likely is that and how much revenue will materialize from bombarding thousands of men with ads? That cannot be economically viable.

The actually infuriating part is, that we’re still paying for it. And the vendors as well. Only Google profits. If a company spends more on ads than necessary, their products will get more expensive, and those who buy their products will have to pay for it. So essentially I’m paying money for being advertised to, so Google can rake in billions.

The long-term goal is for Rust to overtake C in the kernel (from what I understand

Your understanding wrong. Rust is limited to some very specific niches within the kernel and will likely not spread out anytime soon.

critical code gets left untouched (a lot of the time) because no one wants to be the one that breaks shit

The entire kernel is “critical”. The entire kernel runs - kind of by definition - in kernel space. Every bug there has the potential for privilege escalation or faults - theoretically even hardware damage. So following your advice, nobody should every touch the kernel at all.

Germany has a Sovereign Tech Fund for exactly this, and while it’s not perfect, it’s one of the better uses of my tax euros.

Replacing C with Rust in the upstream kernel is akin to replacing the engine in a car while it’s running or being used every day.

That’s in no way what’s been proposed. Rust is used in a very well defined niche, nobody wants to get rid of C.

But it’s just that sentiment that got us here, you’re arguing against a non-existent threat, and thus reject the whole proposal.